In re the Estate of Barson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Estate of Barson

199 A.D.2d 261, 605 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11262

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 6, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 261 (In re the Estate of Barson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Estate of Barson, 199 A.D.2d 261, 605 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11262 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

In two proceedings pursuant to SCPA 2110, the appeals are from (1) a decree of the [262]*262Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated February 15, 1991, which awarded $40,000 in legal fees, plus disbursements, to the Estate of Raphael L. Elias, and (2) a resettled decree of the same court, dated March 12,1991, which awarded $20,000 in legal fees, plus disbursements, to Shapiro & Schwartz.

Ordered that the decree and resettled decree are affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the estate.

We find that the Surrogate’s Court did not err in finding that the first attorney to handle the estate, the late Raphael L. Elias, did not agree to provide services without compensation. In addition, the record supports the court’s determination that the firm of Shapiro & Schwartz, the successor firm, was retained by the estate, was not discharged by the letter from the executrix dated March 22, 1988, and was entitled to compensation for the services provided. Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court did not err in awarding compensation to the Estate of Raphael L. Elias, and to the firm of Shapiro & Schwartz pursuant to SCPA 2110.

We decline to award sanctions in connection with the instant appeal. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Balletta and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

In two proceedings pursuant to SCPA 2110, the appeals are from (1) a decree of the [262]*262Surrogate’s Court, Westchester County (Emanuelli, S.), dated February 15, 1991, which awarded $40,000 in legal fees, plus disbursements, to the Estate of Raphael L. Elias, and (2) a resettled decree of the same court, dated March 12,1991, which awarded $20,000 in legal fees, plus disbursements, to Shapiro & Schwartz.

Ordered that the decree and resettled decree are affirmed, with one bill of costs payable by the estate.

We find that the Surrogate’s Court did not err in finding that the first attorney to handle the estate, the late Raphael L. Elias, did not agree to provide services without compensation. In addition, the record supports the court’s determination that the firm of Shapiro & Schwartz, the successor firm, was retained by the estate, was not discharged by the letter from the executrix dated March 22, 1988, and was entitled to compensation for the services provided. Accordingly, the Surrogate’s Court did not err in awarding compensation to the Estate of Raphael L. Elias, and to the firm of Shapiro & Schwartz pursuant to SCPA 2110.

We decline to award sanctions in connection with the instant appeal. Thompson, J. P., Bracken, Balletta and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 261, 605 N.Y.S.2d 947, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11262, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-estate-of-barson-nyappdiv-1993.